Justice Department Supoenas 2 Months of AP's phone records in leak investigation, notifies AP of Subpoena after records are seized

[jarl the climber]

The thing that I've been hearing for a while is that this White House is very diligent about tracking down leaks and on top of it this is the tightest administration that anyone can remember. Bob Woodward, who is one of the most well known journalists in the country accused administration officials of putting pressure on him to change something he had wrtitten. Woodward has enough stature to withstand pressure like this but he was disturbed to think that a more junior reporter would have been intimidated by these tactics.

Now we see them going after the AP, which is a hard news/wire service that is used as source by almost every reputable news outlet in the country. I'm not really clear with the facts on this or how it pans in the coming weeks but it does seem like its fits into a pattern. Even if it is legal a lot of people will say it should not be, it does infringe on Bill of Rights and this could be a source of litigation. I do not see it really playing well for the President with everything else thats going on but I do not know enough yet.

[ThinkerX]

Wait a second, isn't this exactly the kind of stuff states have been legislating across the US? Aren't there all kinds of places that have made it illegal to take pictures of factory farms? Or is that just a liberal myth? You get the kind of government you elect, don't you?

Not quite. That is the sort of stuff we in the US got as a direct result of the 'Patriot Act'. A couple of close at hand examples:

ten miles down the road from where I live is a group of petrochemical plants. Until the Patriot Act passed, people would sometimes stop and take pics of them. Do that nowdays and the security guards will take your camera away. These guards have gone after people on their own property who had cameras out. You can't even legally stop along the highway through there (a mile and a half stretch of road). Hitchhikers get picked up at one end and dropped off at the other.

Now...five mile past that is a road that goes down to a public beach. Because of the way the road was originally engineered, the last stretch before hitting the beach is also the parking lot for an oil services provider. The beach itself was and is used by 'setnetters' (commercial fisherman), as well as by picnicing types. The sort of place where parents would take their kids. When the Patriot Act took effect, that access was closed off. A guard shack went up. People who'd used that access for DECADES were turned away. It took YEARS of legal wrangling to get the government goons to back off on that.

Another site I go to has a lot of train nuts. They like to watch trains and take pics of them. These days quite a few of them are getting in trouble for doing just exactly that - their prime train watching locations are now off limits.

I see all of this as a massive, totally unjustified and unwarrented intrusion on peoples freedom that does no significant good at all. It is the result of petty bureaucrats going on power trips.

I believe the Patriot Act should be repealed and Homeland Security disbanded, along with about half the other Federal level investigative agencies. Those idiots spend more time fighting turf wars with each other than they do in their real jobs anyhow. The so called 'Justice Department' needs a full purge of the top two levels (at least) as it appears to be morphing into an instrument of oppression on behalf of the elites, rather than justice.

Odds of any of this happening short of a revolution or something equally dramatic: somewhere between slim and nil.

[Fragile Bird]

FB,

If that is happening (I hadn't heard about it and would be interested to hear more) it sounds like more evidence of ThinkerX's feared result.

From the New York Times.

But a dozen or so state legislatures have had a different reaction: They proposed or enacted bills that would make it illegal to covertly videotape livestock farms, or apply for a job at one without disclosing ties to animal rights groups. They have also drafted measures to require such videos to be given to the authorities almost immediately, which activists say would thwart any meaningful undercover investigation of large factory farms.

Critics call them “Ag-Gag” bills.

Some of the legislation appears inspired by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a business advocacy group with hundreds of state representatives from farm states as members. The group creates model bills, drafted by lobbyists and lawmakers, that in the past have included such things as “stand your ground” gun laws and tighter voter identification rules.

One of the group’s model bills, “The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act,” prohibits filming or taking pictures on livestock farms to “defame the facility or its owner.” Violators would be placed on a “terrorist registry.”

Officials from the group did not respond to a request for comment.

[Fragile Bird]

Not quite. That is the sort of stuff we in the US got as a direct result of the 'Patriot Act'.

Osama bin Laden said he would change the USA forever.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FB,

Those seem clear violations of the 1st amendment.

[Fragile Bird]

FB,

Those seem clear violations of the 1st amendment.

Yes, but someone has to challenge each law, right? The problem is the family farm has largely been replaced by the corporate farm, and the corporate farms have demanded protection from those damn evil crazy-in-the-head animal rights activists. Especially the corporate owners of slaughter houses.

[jarl the climber]

Osama bin Laden said he would change the USA forever.

So what are you saying FB, that since right wing/conservative/business groups might be enacting legislation in certian juridstictions that seems to infringe on the rights of certian groups rights and activities, that this makes it OK for the Administration to act in a possibly similar way towards the AP?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Jarl,

Did she say that? I believe she's saying we should be consistent in our objections and she's right.

[Fragile Bird]

So what are you saying FB, that since right wing/conservative/business groups might be enacting legislation in certian juridstictions that seems to infringe on the rights of certian groups rights and activities, that this makes it OK for the Administration to act in a possibly similar way towards the AP?

Uh, no, I am responding to ThinkerX's post about not being able to take pictures of all kinds of places anymore. After 9/11 bin Laden said he had changed America forever. I have searched for a story with that quote but all I get are stories about his death. Perhaps someone who's better at searching could find a reference. However, the New Yorker summed it up quite well:

Bin Laden, as medieval ideologist and global terrorist, had a record of accomplishment that was as vast as it was hideous. He did more to slash the fabric of American life than anyone since the Second World War. His capacity to arouse the fevered imaginations of young fundamentalists led to the murder of thousands of men, women, and children—among them Muslim men, women, and children—in Aden, Mogadishu, Nairobi, Dar es Salaam, Washington, New York, Shanksville, Bali, Madrid, London, Baghdad, Kabul, and Marrakech. He provoked wars. He forced the rise of expensive structures of security and surveillance. He incited a national politics of paranoia and retribution. He did as much as the economic rise of China and India has done to undermine America’s short-lived post-Cold War status as a singular, self-confident, seemingly omnipotent superpower. Bin Laden signed his last will and testament on December 14, 2001, while hiding in the caves of Tora Bora, instructing his children not to work for Al Qaeda: “If it is good, then we have had our share; if it is bad, then it is enough.”

[Fragile Bird]

Jarl,

Did she say that? I believe she's saying we should be consistent in our objections and she's right.

Yes, that as well. But I was responding a bit more narrowly to Jari. :)

[jarl the climber]

Yes, that as well. But I was responding a bit more narrowly to Jari. :)

Is it really the same thing? Would it be OK for the meat industry to use their resources to infiltrate animal rights groups and try to use the information they gather against these groups? Nothing is stopping the animal rights groups from lobbying in various juridstictions. I'm not sure how it works if you want to become a meat inspector for the government. Do they ask questions about whether the applicant is active in these groups and is it frowned upon? If your concerned about these sorts of thing(animal rights) and you become a meat inspector because you want to see that animals are treated fairly is that a problem?

[Xray the Enforcer]

I, for one, will be inserting cock shots and goatse into all of my correspondence with sources from now on. If the Obama administration would like to snoop on my activities, the least I can do is give them an eyeful.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

Fight the power!

[Sixshells]

It doesn't matter if you become a meat inspector or an animal welfare officer for the government, if the lobbying power of the meat industry is so great that they can simply ask the government to downsize those departments into irrelevance.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Xray,

Fight the power!

Seriously. ;) Most of the stories I work on aren't on a level that would merit the notice of any administration. But....we're thinking of commissioning some investigative stuff in the near future, and who knows where that might lead? Frankly, all this should do is serve as a wake-up call for journalists to employ more covert methods of communication, be that with Tor or other kinds of cryptography. Hell, I might just do that On General Principles.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Xray,

I hope you and other journalists do just that.

[jarl the climber]

It doesn't matter if you become a meat inspector or an animal welfare officer for the government, if the lobbying power of the meat industry is so great that they can simply ask the government to downsize those departments into irrelevance.

Haven't American meat producers had issues importing their produce because of concerns over their quality? Dosen't the meat industry have an interest in insuring the quality and safety of their product? Were really getting off topic but I can not see the tactic that certian animal rights group use ie to gain acsess to private property under false pretenses to secretly make video tapes of the facility as being 100% kosher. It does seem to violate the rights of the property owner on a certian level.

Let me put it to you this way. Suppose you smoke pot. Your neighbor has a problem with it. You have a decent sized party and this neighbor invites himself and kind of gets lost in the woodwork and he secretly tapes your activities. He gives the tape to the police. Would you see this as a violation of your rights?

[Sturn]

To me, and several others, this is pretty scary. I am a bit surprised that the general reaction on the board has been so muted, though.

I'm not surprised at all. I assume you've noticed the slant of this board being pro-Obama administration? Now if Romney had won the last election and this was happening we would have hit 10 pages yesterday.

No, I just don't think the US has any business hacking into other countries computer systems in the first place (unless we are at war with them I guess).

So you would rather wait for Iran to develop the nukes, then get in a nuclear shooting war with them? That would be better for you then launching a virus (a computer one, that kills no one) that prevents the nukes just in case?

[Fragile Bird]

The question is, is there a right to privacy when committing a crime?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm not surprised at all. I assume you've noticed the slant of this board being pro-Obama administration? Now if Romney had won the last election and this was happening we would have hit 10 pages yesterday.

So you would rather wait for Iran to develop the nukes, then get in a nuclear shooting war with them? That would be better for you then launching a virus (a computer one, that kills no one) that prevents the nukes just in case?

Why shouldn't Iran be able to have nukes? We've got no standing to keep them from having them.